Open Stack

On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 12:41 AM, Andrea Frittoli
<andrea.frittoli at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 12:33 PM Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> Andrea Frittoli wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > during the last summit in Sydney we discussed the possibility of
>> > creating an
>> > OpenStack quality assurance special interest group (OpenStack QA SIG).
>> > The proposal was discussed during the QA feedback session [0] and it
>> > received
>> > positive feedback there; I would like to bring now the proposal to a
>> > larger
>> > audience via the SIG, dev and operators mailing lists.
>> > [...]

Yea, This will greatly help QA team to get more interest from
downstream QA teams and sharing
of QA practice, scenarios & tools. I am happy to volunteer for this effort.

>>
>> I think this goes with the current trends of re-centering upstream
>> "project teams" on the production of software, while using SIGs as
>> communities of practice (beyond the governance boundaries), even if they
>> happen to produce (some) software as the result of their work.
>>
>> One question I have is whether we'd need to keep the "QA" project team
>> at all. Personally I think it would create confusion to keep it around,
>> for no gain. SIGs code contributors get voting rights for the TC anyway,
>> and SIGs are free to ask for space at the PTG... so there is really no
>> reason (imho) to keep a "QA" project team in parallel to the SIG ?
>
>
> That is a possibility indeed, but I think co-existance will be the case for
> a
> bit at least - we may decide to drop the QA program eventually depending
> on how the experience with the SIG goes.

Yea, we can think of merging both based on progress and how this SIG
provide us the practical benefits. Probably this idea might solve less
contributors issue where more people from downstream start
participating in QA but as of now I cannot say anything on this.

In current situation, it will be difficult to not have QA project
team. QA has around 15 projects
and few of active projects like Tempest, Devstack, Grenade, Patrole,
O-H need dedicated team to
maintain and implement them. Grouping them under single SIG will be
another challenge to get a dedicated
attention to them.

Currently I see the proposed QA SIG as a common platform for different
entity like OpenStack upstream, downstream QA and
other community like opnfv etc. to share best practice, tooling etc.
For example, opnfv shown much interest in on-ongoing OpenStack
"extreme testing" and this SIG can play important role to
shape this project in good/efficient direction. But we need a
dedicated set of people to lead/implement it.

Another point/idea is to consider and run this QA SIG  as one of the
effort under QA program along with project team which can be lead by
common leader(QA PTL) to make sure both
effort goes in smooth and syncing way.

-gmann

>
>>
>>
>> In the same vein we are looking into turning the Security project team
>> into a SIG, and could consider turning other non-purely-upstream teams
>> (like I18n) in the future.
>>
>> --
>> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> openstack-sigs mailing list
>> openstack-sigs at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-sigs
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>